In spite of a few signs of rehabilitation, the San Francisco Chronicle continues to distinguish itself as both a shameless enemy of the Bush administration and a wanton apologist for terrorists and their state sponsors. In yesterday's unsigned editorial, the paper pours all of the blame for the looting of Baghdad's museum into Donald Rumsfeld's lap, accusing him of criminal negligence. Yet they are also convinced of the noble intentions of the Saddamite mafiosi
One hope is that some of the antiquities may have been stored for safekeeping before this war or taken by Saddam Hussein to adorn his private palaces.It apparently doesn't occur to those who think that the Republican Guard are better people than the Republican Party that it would have been members of the ancien regime who stole the antiquities, not for "safekeeping", but for sale on the black market. The Baltimore Sun reports that
A Northern California scholar and collector of Iraqi art who spoke on condition of anonymity said he was contacted surreptitiously before the war and told that Iraqi antiquities would soon become available.I wonder who could have known this, other than someone who had already emptied the museum?
The Chronicle has never found a Ba'athist dictator whom they haven't wanted to protect from US foreign policy. In today's editorial, they side with Baby Doc Assad, member of the world's A-list of promoters of torture, plunder, terrorism and illegal occupation of other people's territory.
We welcome the administration's denial of intent to pursue a military solution of these newly enunciated grievances against Syria. That would further destabilize a Middle East just starting to digest the results in Iraq and inflame opinion in the Arab world against the United States. Another pre- emptive war could not be justified by the claim that Damascus threatens U.S. interests; Syria is even hostile to the al Qaeda terrorists who are in the bull's-eye of the U.S. war on terrorism.Never mind that Syria is an energetic sponsor of others who are in the bull's eye of the U.S. war on terrorism, such as the Hizbullah. And since the war on terrorism is all about destabilizing the wretched status quo in the Middle East, why stop now? Indeed, I am worried that the Chronicle's pro-Ba'ath editorial policy is going to inflame opinion in the American world against San Francisco.
 | Meanwhile, Annie Nakao is the Chronicle's back-of-the-comic-section housewife columnist, a kind of self-absorbed America-bashing Berkeley version of Erma Bombeck, but without the decency, insights or sense of humor. Yesterday Nakao eulogized bulldozer shahida Rachel Corrie, calling her an "aid worker" and a "peace activist". |
Weeks after her death, I still find it hard to judge the wisdom of Rachel CorrieUh, it shouldn't be at all hard to judge (the absence of) Corrie's wisdom, and to figure out that she was neither an "aid worker" nor was she working for "peace", she was trying to sabotage the defensive military operations of only one of the parties to the conflict. Nakao goes on to allege that Israel violates human rights and the Geneva Convention, but for some reason she doesn't mention that the Palestinian terrorists whom Corrie was defending happen to violate ... human rights and the Geneva Convention. Nakao closes
So despite the polarized views of Rachel Corrie's death, this matter, too, is complicated. Perhaps trying to understand why she was there is her gift to us.I understand that Corrie's reprehensible choices were the result of a lousy upbringing and a bad education. Now I don't wish anything bad to happen to Annie Nakao. But if she should ever be, say, hacked to pieces, I might say to myself: "Gee, this is complicated, but the murderer's gift to humanity is so we may try to understand why he dismembered Annie Nakao. I will study and read about this and try to form my own opinion""This was something she studied, read about, formed her own opinions on," said brother Chris Corrie. "That's what the rest of us need to do now."
UPDATE In Wednesday's Chronicle, an otherwise fine article about an Iraqi-born Jewish immigrant is blemished by this characterization:
It was 1951. The newly established Jewish state -- and the displacement of thousands of Palestinians -- had rekindled violence and recrimination against the once-thriving Jewish community of Baghdad.Sorry. The establishment of the State of Israel had nothing to do with Iraq and was not responsible for "kindling" the anti-Jewish pogroms there any more than the Emancipation Proclamation was responsible for "kindling" violence against black people in the United States. Indiscriminate ethnic violence is kindled only by the hatred and indecency of those who commit it, not by somebody else's newly won liberation. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 16, 2003 04:11 PM
The piece may also be read as triggering the violence in Iraq, not blaming it.
Posted by: David Klotz on April 17, 2003 04:31 AMWhy can't Bush's defenders just come out and admit it...Bush fucked up?
Prriceless and irreplaceable artistic, historical, and cultural artifacts were lost...forever. This is a cultural and historical tragedy. Even if you, like Hannity and Rush, don't care one whit about preserving the artifacts, this is a massive p.r. blunder that EASILY could have been prevented...if the administration had made it a priority. They didn't and the world is worse for it.
You can still believe Saddam was an "evil-doer." You can still vote for Bush in 2004. You can still support the troops. But just admit. This was a grade A fuckup that never should have taken place.
Posted by: space on April 17, 2003 06:41 AMRachel Corrie - I do not share her view of the conflict, but I must point out that she died engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience - the very thing that many people implore those supportive of the Palestinian cause to embrace.
Posted by: Marco Rosa on April 17, 2003 11:06 AM>>Rachel Corrie - I do not share her view of the conflict, but I must point out that she died engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience - the very thing that many people implore those supportive of the Palestinian cause to embrace.>>
Civil disobedience is not innocent. It is mostly compromising the rights of others, such as blocking streets and occupying buildings as in SF.
Corrie was a foreign national interfering in the affairs of another country. She had no more business there than anyone from anywhere joining in a domestic American dispute. Secondly, she knew the risks. Civil disobedience is the initiation of force. She ended up paying the price she was prepared for. I have no sympathy for her.
Posted by: David Klotz on April 17, 2003 11:30 AMThe article has another notable inaccuracy. It belittles the 1941 Farhud, the bloody massacre of Jews in Iraq in 1941 by calling it : anti- Jewish riots, which continued off and on until the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, when the violence became much worse again. The unprovoked Farhud, a furious rampage of slaughter, mutilation, rape and looting, was the peak of violence against Jews in Iraq. The violence against Jews in Iraq following the establishment of the state of Israel didn't reach anywhere near the level of that bloodbath, which of course had nothing to do with what was going to happen in Palestine seven years later. It was the Farhud that made many Iraqi Jews into vehement Zionists, more of them than in any of the other Arab countries, and also instilled in the Iraqi Jews the realization that they would be better off in Israel. You see, they had already gotten a glimpse of the alternative. They didn't stick around to wait for it to happen.
Posted by: Imshin on April 19, 2003 12:50 AMI do not see why you are ganging up and criticizing Ms. Annie Nakao. She is a wonderful author who I have respected for years. Her column about Rachel Corrie was a touching tribute and should be given the same courtesy and respect as an obituary or an engraving on a tombstone.
Posted by: Molly Solomon on August 30, 2003 05:38 PM